899 F.3d 505
8th Cir.2018Background
- On Jan. 16, 2013, experienced IDOT drill operator Jeffery Oppedahl was entangled in an unguarded rotating auger on a truck-mounted drill and became quadriplegic; the auger at issue was manufactured in 1990 and refurbished by IDOT on or after Aug. 5, 1999.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, but summary judgment or dismissal left Mobile Drill Company as the only remaining defendant on appeal.
- District court dismissed Plaintiffs’ strict products liability and negligence claims concerning the drill (statute of repose) and related consortium claims; claims relating to the auger survived initial dismissal as alternative-liability negligence claims.
- Plaintiffs amended to allege negligent entrustment by Mobile Drill (that Mobile Drill negligently entrusted the auger to IDOT); Mobile Drill moved for summary judgment on negligent entrustment and related consortium claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for Mobile Drill, finding Plaintiffs failed to plead or show the requisite knowledge/foreseeability that IDOT would use the auger in an unsafe manner, and held the refurbishment-by-IDOT did not revive manufacturer liability under a statute-of-repose theory.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing (1) refurbishment reset Iowa’s statute of repose and (2) negligent entrustment claim should have survived; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDOT’s refurbishment restarts Iowa’s statute of repose, allowing strict liability and negligence claims against Mobile Drill | Refurbishment of the auger less than 15 years before injury reset the repose period so claims are timely | Repose bars claims; any refurbishment exception requires the manufacturer, not a third party, to perform the refurbishment | Repose bars claims; refurbishment-by-IDOT does not reset repose and exception (if recognized) applies only when manufacturer performs refurbishment |
| Whether negligent entrustment liability applies to a product manufacturer for sale to an experienced government operator (IDOT) | Mobile Drill knew it sold augers to IDOT, knew regulatory oversight was weak, and knew auger accidents can be catastrophic, so liability was foreseeable | No specific facts show Mobile Drill knew or had reason to know IDOT was likely to use the auger dangerously; abstract possibility is insufficient | Summary judgment for Mobile Drill affirmed; Plaintiffs failed to show requisite knowledge/foreseeability under either Restatement §390 or §19 standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Mo. Broadcasters Ass’n v. Lacy, 846 F.3d 295 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Estate of Ryan v. Heritage Trails Assocs., Inc., 745 N.W.2d 724 (Iowa 2008) (explaining effect of a statute of repose)
- Pritchett v. Kimberling Cove, Inc., 568 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1977) (negligent entrustment requires supplier knowledge of entrustee’s incompetence or inexperience)
- Collins v. Ark. Cement Co., 453 F.2d 512 (8th Cir. 1972) (supplier liable where foreman had notice of misuse by employees)
- White v. Chrysler Corp., 364 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 1984) (no negligent entrustment absent duty to investigate contractor’s peculiarities indicating unsafe use)
- Butchkosky v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 855 F. Supp. 1251 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (recognizing limited refurbishment exception to repose when manufacturer re-acquires and completely refurbishes product)
- Divis v. Clarklift of Neb., Inc., 590 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 1999) (original manufacturer not liable where third party, not manufacturer, performed refurbishment)